In my Sunday diatribe “Laying Low,” I said:
The debate revealed Scott Walker to be this round’s Tim Pawlenty, a decent enough chap but one who lacks the luster to be president. He was boring. He was bland. He didn’t offer much in the way of substance. He seemed a bit out of his league. He disappointed.
Those are the things some armchair pundits and even some real ones claim, dismissing the chances of Scott Walker following his inaugural “performance” in his first national debate.
These people aren’t as smart as Scott Walker, I dare suggest.
Published the same day in the Cap Times is a piece by associate editor (not really sure, but I think that’s a union-mandated way of saying “writer”…) John Nichols, in which he rhetorically asks “Is the Scott Walker boom going bust?”
I refute Nichols’ specious arguments with abandon in my post, but to quote:
Nichols claims “The Fox debate was crucial for Walker, who needed to renew his candidacy. Instead, he renewed a sense that he was not ready for prime time.” No doubt an expert on Republican politics and Republican voters, because, you know, he heard Rachel Maddow talk about them once, Nichols nonetheless fails to see that Republican voters are just as fickle and prone to changes of mind as Hillary voters in 2008. The debate, the first of a handful of debates.
To boot, the charge that a candidate is “not ready for prime time” is exceptionally weak and can certainly be overcome.
Nichols also, as if anticipating I’d be weighing in, also made a point for me by saying: “He was drab and predictable on a stage where it was hard enough to steal attention from Trump.” Again, my previous post about the wherefores of Walker’s performance stands by itself, but our favorite associate editor states clearly why a candidate like Walker, who isn’t born to be an entertainer, wouldn’t try to out-glitz Trump. To try that would be just plain dumb, and Walker is anything but.
Nichols adds, “He sounded like what he is: a political careerist looking to add another line to his resume.” Ostensibly, isn’t that what they all are, from Hillary to Walker? Nichols certainly finds a cynical way to phrase it, but isn’t the idea that anybody can become the president regardless of the circumstances of their birth supposed to be more than a cute article of foolishness that dreamy kids believe? Walker, with his humble roots, demonstrates that it’s real.
Nichols goes on to quote the same Fivethirtyeight poll cross-section that I did, but with a much less sophisticated interpretation. Instead of understanding that polls move in two directions, Nichols assumes Walker’s lost ground of -4.6 percent on average can never be made up. I refute that on the basis of evidence, but also on the basis that Walker is comfortable waging his campaign on the grassroots level rather than – at least at this stage of the game – on a mass media level.
That probably nonplusses the mass media, but who cares about them.
The story is accompanied by a poll asking the lefty paper’s lefty readers how Scott Walker did in the debate, the non-scientificness of which is sublime, and the creation of which was certainly a way for Nichols to kill some time on a sure-fire source of anti-Walker self-gratification.
Anyway, the moral of the story is that the Cap Times is a fools’ publication that is run by fools and is most useful in soaking up the juices of other fools who enjoy the boldly partisan rag a little too much.
The moral is also that Walker makes The Left lose their ability to reason, and in turn their ability to think, and in turn their ability to win. So he’s got that.